". Since 2005, Ohio has had in person early-voting in the three days prior to the election. This year, however, the Republican legislature in Ohio eliminated early voting during this period, except for members of the military. The Obama lawsuit is attempting to restore voting rights for all Ohioans, not restrict them for the military or any other group. From the Obama lawsuit, filed in federal court:

Plaintiffs bring this lawsuit to restore in-person early voting for all Ohioans during the three days prior to Election Day – a right exercised by an estimated 93,000 Ohioans in the last presidential election. Ohio election law, as currently enacted by the State of Ohio and administered by Defendant Ohio Secretary of State, arbitrarily eliminates early voting during the three days prior to Election Day for most Ohio voters, a right previously available to all Ohio voters.

The Obama campaign’s request for a preliminary injunction does not seek to restrict military voting. Rather, it simply is asking that the full early voting period be open to all citizens, as it was under the law before this year.

Even Fox News acknowledges the purpose of the suit, noting “the lawsuit does not restrict the ability of military personnel to cast their ballots early."

What was it RJ said? If you can't win on your merits, change the rules? Isn't that EXACTLY what Republicans have done in Ohio?

Harumph #11038 from OHIO says Actually PJ, I agree with you on your premise
Until I see a reason for limiting the early voting for non-military voters then the rule should stand as is.

So is there a reason for the change? You can speculate but I have been unable to find a reason for it.

HB #10313 from INDIANA says It stops all of the dead Democrats in Cleveland from voting...
actually, that is what absentee ballots are for.. what is the problem with absentee balloting if you know that you are going to be indisposed on Election Day? Why then is it necessary to add 3 days onto the election time?

There are a lot of extra expenses incurred with expanded voting days, if you consider polls open, judges, and the like. If this is already covered with absentee ballots, what is the problem?

Harumph #11038 from OHIO says Flashback: Democrats Worked Hard to Disqualify Overseas Military Ballots in 2000 Recount
In 2000, the nation's politics hung in the balance of a recount fight in Florida. George W. Bush had beaten Al Gore by a few hundred votes in the seminal swing state, and Democrats went all-in to reverse this
result and hand the presidency to Gore. One of the lawyers hired by the Democrats during the recount fight was Mark Herron, how drafted a memo detailing how to disqualify military absentee ballots.
(Memo is below.) His work had an immediate affect, as recalled by Bill Sammon in 2001:

The main battlegound was Duval County, home to more military families than any other county in Florida. Duval had more absentee ballots from overseas than any other county - 618 of 3,500 cast statewide.
Five Gore lawyers showed up at the elections office at 9 a.m. Friday to disqualify as many of those ballots as possible.

Tom Bishop, one of the Republican lawyers, was incensed as he watched the Democrats, armed with the smoking-gun memo, blatantly go about disqualify large numbers of military ballots.

"They had their little cheat sheet they were using, and they objected on every single possible ground they could, no matter how spurious," Bishop told Sammon. "It was so bad that there was rolling of the
eyes by even some of the Democrats there who were watching their lawyers work."

Before Nov. 17, the Duval supervisor of elections compared signatures on ballot envelopes against signature cards on file. He could find only two absentee ballots that could not be included because the
signatures did not match.

"But now the Democrats insisted that they be allowed to compare all signatures, one by one. For seven tedious hours, they bitterly argued that signatures on more than 100 envelopes did not precisely
match the signature cards - although some envelopes had been signed by sailors on rolling seas in hostile situations,” Sammon wrote.

"You could clearly tell it was the same person´s signature, but they would object because it didn´t have a certain curlicue or didn´t have a certain twist or it was smaller," Bishop told him.

The Democrat lawyers sought to disqualify military ballots that had no overseas postmark on the grounds that some voters might have marked their ballots a day or two after the election and then mailed
them in.

The Democrats' efforts to suppress the military vote weren't confined to one county. From an Associated Press account:

In some counties, half or nearly all the overseas ballots were rejected, many of them military ballots that apparently didn't have postmarks.

Orange County, for example, rejected 117 of its 147 overseas ballots. In Hillsborough County, 74 of the 135 ballots were rejected after Democrats raised concerns about postmark or signature problems.
Alachua County rejected half of the 56 ballots it received. St. Lucie rejected 13 of 14 and Lake County, all five.

"The party of the man who wants to be the next commander in chief is trying to throw out the votes of the men and women he will be commanding," charged Jim Post, a Republican lawyer in Duval County,
where 107 ballots were rejected.

Thomas Spencer, a Miami attorney for Bush, said the GOP legal team would weigh whether to sue this weekend. "One of the problems with those ballots is it is so difficult under Florida and federal law that
you almost have to be a rocket scientist to comply," he said.

Earlier this week, Mark Herron, a Tallahassee lawyer helping shepherd Democratic presidential election lawsuits through the local courts, sent a five-page letter to Democratic attorneys throughout Florida
giving them tips on how to lodge protests against overseas ballots.

Such protests had to be filed before the ballot was taken out of the envelope. The letter focused on protesting military ballots.

Herron said he was retained by the DNC on election night.

No matter how the Democrats and the media try to spin this, the party has actively sought to suppress the votes of the men and women in the military. The very fact that a memo was circulated, explaining, in
detail, how to disqualify military ballots should be enough evidence of the party's checkered history with military voting.

****

Yeah PJ, the DIMs are really concerned about protecting the vote.

Now the reason provided by HB above certainly appears to be a legit concern.

PJzaBruin (173.51.244.250) from CALIFORNIA says We're not talking about ADDING on 3 days
We're talking about Republicans TAKING AWAY 3 days. That's what the new rule has done.

Which fits with the Republicans physically forcing their way into rooms in Florida to keep every vote from being counted in the recounts of 2000.

PJzaBruin (173.51.244.250) from CALIFORNIA says And I can't help wondering
If Ohio is going to save money by closing these election offices 3 days before the election, WHERE are those uniformed military folks going to cast THEIR ballots?

Ereich (74.75.15.134) from MAINE says It is all about the narrative. Obama sues to take away voting rights
for Ohio military. Had this been Bush that would be the media headline. It should be an ad campaign for Romney.

RJR from MISSOURI says it really doesn't matter
there will be folks at polling places in November intimidating people who obviously are not going to vote the way they want them to. sayitisntsopj?

PJzaBruin (173.51.244.250) from CALIFORNIA says But that's a lie, Ereich. He sued to MAINTAIN voting rights that REPUBLICANS were taking away.
The suit does NOT seek to reduce anyone's voting rights. It seeks to restore the voting rights of veterans and civilians.

MikeF from FLORIDA says back on that one way street
Voting is only a right for those who are legally entitled to vote. No republican would ever try to take away the right to vote for active duty and retired military. DUH

PJzaBruin (173.51.244.250) from CALIFORNIA says Evidently not true in Ohio, Mike
Veterans have lost the right to vote during the last 3 days prior to the election, and that was orchestrated by Republicans.

In 2008, they could vote on the Friday, Saturday, and Sunday prior to election day. This year, Obama is suing for them to keep that right. The Republican-dominated Ohio legislature changed the rules.

Ereich, perspective changes nothing in this case. If the Obama Administration's lawsuit succeeds, active military gets to vote on the Friday, Saturday, and Sunday prior to election day. If the lawsuit fails, active military gets to vote on the Friday, Saturday, and Sunday prior to election day.

Harumph #11038 from OHIO says Again, I agree with your premise PJ
What they are doing?

1. They are removing the early voting for non-military person in the state of Ohio.

Is this a cost saving measure or an effort to reduce fraud? Seems plausible but I haven't seen a concrete reason for it.

2. They are going to maintain the early voting for military folks. This I agree with.

So the rub is point 1. Until I see a concrete reason for that change I agree with you that it should not be changed.

Hope that clears my position up.

Ereich (74.75.15.134) from MAINE says No doubt Obama will be suing to
enforce Section 8 of the National Voter Registration Act. 160 U.S. Counties Have More Registered To Vote Than Actual Live, Eligible Voters!

When you have a voter roll with 200% more names on it than voters it takes time to exploit that. It is not fair to cut that time short.

MikeF from FLORIDA says so are you saying ONLY for the military or are you just picking the part that sounds good
Is a half-truth a half-lie or is that just a different street

Rusticus from MASSACHUSETTS says here's an idea
why not google the Ohio State Election Law and find out what it says.

Use the State of Ohio website so you don't have to depend on anyone elses words.

You'll find out it excludes everyone but active military from voting early.

Ereich (74.75.15.134) from MAINE says You'll find out it excludes everyone but active military from voting early.
and what is wrong with that?